Silveresque
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,169
I'm curious.
I'm curious.
Hm... Fi analysis has two major purposes with me. Creating both moral implementations and moral ideas (i.e. actions and thoughts that do not hurt the individual). These two responsibilities make up my conscience. If either aspect is not fulfilled guild ensues.
ftr - I am 95% sure I truly am an enfp.
When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.
How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?
When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.
How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?
I kind of have pre-built concepts of how I feel about everything. You could say there is something of a model in my head of how the world would ideally be, especially concerning MY life, and every time I come across something, I immediately see how it fits with or contradicts this model. I then evaluate it accordingly & form a judgment; at first, this often emerges in the moment as a "feeling-tone" which is not so much an emotional reaction as it is a pre-verbal judgment, a sort of mental atmosphere. I think people call this a gut-feeling, but it's a knowing of yourself more than an instinct about other things. I resist emotional reaction to things though, so what I'm left with is more of a Ne impression with a Fi judgment flavor.
If I'm so inclined, I will analyze the nuances of this reaction/impression & the thing itself & form a line of reasoning as to why it does or does not fit in with my ideal. In this way, Fi is holistic and then breaks into parts if/when necessary. In small matters, I don't feel the need to examine all the parts & may make no judgment, but in large matters I always do, especially if I am seeking to harmonize two seemingly contradictory feelings. Things are rarely black & white. I don't view things in simple terms like "good" or "bad", but there's a spectrum, and context makes a difference. I would say things are varying degrees of "acceptable" and "unacceptable".
I often don't reach conclusions right away due to Ne - I put off making a decision until I get more info. I may feel a sway already because I have that immediate feeling-tone, but I don't need to make a final judgment just yet. I'm allowing a picture to form before I compare it to my "ideal model". I may begin analyzing the parts as they come in, or I may simply choose to suspend all decision making for now & see how something develops. As feelings emerge more clearly, then it's easier for me to analyze the nuances.
The way I perceive things via Ne can change how I evaluate something, and so my opinions may change over time, but my core ideals rarely change.
This is why context is important. Sometimes personal values which branch off these ideals will alter due to new info, but the base concept remains.
A concept really gets refined through fantasy. Sometimes, I am not as emotionally moved by experience as much as I am through what I imagine. I've realized that daydreaming is a forum where I explore how I feel about stuff I've never experienced; I have real reactions to what I imagine & it's informative as to how I would feel in a given situation. This is how I build & refine my ideals. This is how I explore the "essence" of being human and see what is necessary, important, and meaningful in life.
Yes, I experience something similar but I don't try to analyse the feeling/reaction. I do have some provisional trust in that reaction; I treat it like a compelling, instinctive hypothesis but I have learned that its important that I seek out more information before I put absolute faith in it. I go into Ne mode; I try and explore the arguments for and against that conclusion and consider other possibilities. If the reaction seems justified I will go with it, if not, I will usually get an adjusted secondary reaction and continue the process from there. I don't believe I ever accept there is no answer; I just assume I don't know it yet. I also always see all things in shades of grey - failure to do so is to miss the possible implications in various situations. In other words, there's an answer but there could be a lot of complexities involved; not everyone's going to like it, maybe not even me.When I analyze a moral dilemma, I often have a feeling about whether it is right or wrong. However, it's not enough for me to simply feel a certain way. I want to know why I feel that way, so I detach to analyze objectively and determine what it is about the situation and its implications that would make me feel that way. If I cannot find logical reasoning behind the feeling, then I decide it's a gray area where there may not be a right or wrong solution. In that case I'll likely wait and withhold judgement until I can come to a decision that I can logically justify.
How would a Fi user's methods compare to this?
Well, here's a theory I have - let me know if you think it doesn't work.RevlisZero said:I see so many similarities and so few differences. Perhaps Fi and Ti are really the same function with different preferences attached. I mean, if both are fully capable of using emotion as well as detached logic when analyzing and making decisions, then the difference must not be a matter of capability. With that ruled out, the difference must lie in the simple matter of preference. While Fi users are capable of detaching to analyze the pros and cons more objectively like Ti, they will always feel more comfortable making subjective decisions. The reverse is true for Ti users.
The other possibility, of course, is that when we speak of Fi users detaching like Ti users would, they may actually be using a different function, such as Te. But as Te will always be present in someone who uses Fi, how can we differentiate the two? Where does Fi end and Te begin? Too much remains undefined
I see so many similarities and so few differences. Perhaps Fi and Ti are really the same function with different preferences attached. I mean, if both are fully capable of using emotion as well as detached logic when analyzing and making decisions, then the difference must not be a matter of capability. With that ruled out, the difference must lie in the simple matter of preference. While Fi users are capable of detaching to analyze the pros and cons more objectively like Ti, they will always feel more comfortable making subjective decisions. The reverse is true for Ti users.
The other possibility, of course, is that when we speak of Fi users detaching like Ti users would, they may actually be using a different function, such as Te. But as Te will always be present in someone who uses Fi, how can we differentiate the two? Where does Fi end and Te begin? Too much remains undefined.